Your Front Yard is a Battlefield: Senate To Vote On Legislation That Allows U.S. Military to Detain

[Jello Biafra]

Your Front Yard is a Battlefield: Senate To Vote On Legislation That Allows U.S. Military to Detain Citizens Without Charge or Trial

Chris Anders
ACLU
November 25th, 2011

While nearly all Americans head to family and friends to celebrate Thanksgiving, the Senate is gearing up for a vote on Monday or Tuesday that goes to the very heart of who we are as Americans. The Senate will be voting on a bill that will direct American military resources not at an enemy shooting at our military in a war zone, but at American citizens and other civilians far from any battlefield — even people in the United States itself.

Senators need to hear from you, on whether you think your front yard is part of a “battlefield” and if any president can send the military anywhere in the world to imprison civilians without charge or trial.

The Senate is going to vote on whether Congress will give this president—and every future president — the power to order the military to pick up and imprison without charge or trial civilians anywhere in the world. Even Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) raised his concerns about the NDAA detention provisions during last night’s Republican debate. The power is so broad that even U.S. citizens could be swept up by the military and the military could be used far from any battlefield, even within the United States itself.

-continued-

http://www.thedailysheeple.com/your-front-yard-is-a-battlefield-senate-to-vote-on-legislation-that-allows-u-s-military-to-detain-citizens-without-charge-or-trial_112011

You can go to the ACLU site to contact your Senators about this:

https://secure.aclu.org/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=3865&s_subsrc=fixNDAA

And idiots wonder why there is an OWS?

[MadHound]

1. So this is why we have the Second Amendment,

When the military starts attacking civilians, civilians have, in my opinion, every right to fight back, with whatever means necessary.

[BanzaiBonnie]

2. Yeah, that's going to work well

[Union Scribe]

5. Right, because it's not like untrained rag-tag forces ever frustrated our military

Oh, wait, that happens every fucking time we deploy them.

When people buy into the idea that they could never resist authority if they want to stomp down, most of their battle is already won.

[bhikkhu]

54. ...in any case, I wish people (including the ACLU) would read the actual current bill.

Which you can download here: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112s1867pcs/pdf/BILLS-112s1867pcs.pdf

It specifically prohibits military detention of US citizens. The worry that it does the opposite apparently comes from a previous draft of the bill back in June or July. In the current bill, the problems have been fixed, and Section 1032 specifically very clearly states: "The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States."

...not to say "just go home and forget about it" or anything like that, because originally it had wording that could be misinterpreted, and legitimate concerns were raised. Job done, I think, unless there are amendments still to go.

[sulphurdunn]

72. It isn't needed

under this bill. It already exists under the Patriot Act and the Military Commissions Act unless I'm mistaken, and I hope I am. It is true that that the authority to arrest US citizens on American soil without Habeas Corpus rights is not granted to the military but is to other federal security agencies.

[tomm2thumbs]

76. a little confused by that - not requiring it only says it isn't mandatory, I think?

Doesn't appear that the line you quote would do anything other than say it isn't required - a far cry from it won't be allowed or become common practice.

I may be interpreting it incorrectly so feel free to set me straight on that.

Thanks

[TheMadMonk]

78. So it's a statement of intent to commit unilateral acts of war against the rest...

...of the world.

[provis99]

62. so says our resident "Red Dawn" fan.

[Tesha]

3. Do you really think that the pissant guns you're allowed to possess are any match for the military..

...or even our modern militarized police forces?

This is why gunners' defense of their rights is such a joke; it was
long ago decided that Americans have no right to possess real
arms: automatic weapons, artillery, RPGs (or even just plain
grenades), NBC weapons, and the like.

All you're allowed to possess (nay, encouraged to possess) are
weapons that keep America's violent culture simmering. The unrest
that results serves the oligarchy and your lack of real weapons
assures them that you won't fight back in any meaningful fashion.

Tesha

[the other one]

4. Well stated.

[Tesha]

6. Thank you. (NT)

[Turbineguy]

7. Ding ding ding!

we have a winner!

[ProgressiveProfessor]

8. The police and politicians are clearly scared to death of them

But mostly they fear the trained individual.

A cop trainer I know is terrified of urban marksmen shooting subsonic 22s. Their detection systems won't trip on them.

[Paladin]

15. Yeah, Right.

Guys like Dick Cheney and Karl Rove spent their careers trembling in fear of an armed civilian populace---particularly those "trained individuals".......

(Sarcasm alert, for those perpetually in need of one.)

[ProgressiveProfessor]

16. You forgot some including Shumer, Bloomberg, and Daley

However you are correct that it is the so called liberals seem the ones most afraid of potentially active resistance

[Paladin]

17. No Great Mystery,There........

....considering that the gun militancy movement in the U.S. is and will continue to be far right-wing in nature.

[RegieRocker]

32. That is a lie. Many Democrats own guns and will keep them.

[Paladin]

39. Gun Ownership Is Very Different Than Gun Militancy.

Being a Democrat who owns guns (like me) doesn't make you a Wayne LaPierre sock toy. But you knew that already, didn't you?

[Leftist Agitator]

10. Those "pissant guns" defeated us in Iraq.

And they are currently doing so in Afghanistan.

A determined resistance force armed with semi-automatic rifles can defeat the most modernized, technologically superior military force, if said rifles are in the right hands. A bright warrior knows how to construct IEDs and a very bright warrior would have no problem synthesizing various chemical warfare agents to deploy against his or her enemy.

Besides, there are more ways to emerge victorious from a conflict than force of arms alone.

[RegieRocker]

34. On deaf ears and blind eyes.

[tabasco]

36. LOL.

You're in lala land somewhere, pal.

[The Doctor.]

52. Wow, So you got nothing here.

Hint; When trying to refute someone's position, use things like information or reason.

[zinnisking]

82. +1

All the ninjas from the gungeon have gathered to put on the usual fantastical theatre. It's fun to watch sometimes and cheaper than a James Bond film.

[Tesha]

38. No, IEDs blowing our soldiers' legs and balls off are what is defeating us.

Continued daily amputations are a great way to sap your opponent's
morale and initiative.

But you go right ahead thinking it's popguns.

Tesha

[The Doctor.]

46. When you don't read a post you respond to, it's not only obvious,

it also takes away from your own arguments.

[Tesha]

50. You talked about the pissant guns defeating us; I pointed out that the guns have...

...essentially nothing to do with it, a point you alluded to but ignored
to make your point about guns.

Tesha

[The Doctor.]

51. It might ALSO help if you knew when you were talking to different people.

Along with learning to read the posts you're responding to.

Just... Wow. This deserves a bookmark.

[Tesha]

74. Why? So many of you talk from the exact same script! (NT)

[rhett o rick]

55. Let me get this straight. You are comparing armed tribesmen in Afghanistan with armed middle class

America? Which video game do you spend your time on?

[Leftist Agitator]

81. Who the hell has time for videogames?

Certainly not I. And as for my comparison, I'm from a part of the country where many, many people practice shooting rifles far more than your average Afghan tribesman does. Granted, the Afghan is usually shooting at American soldiers, and the people that I know are shooting at deer or inanimate targets, but a marksman is a marksman.

See here for more information about the skills that one can develop whilst hunting and shooting for recreation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simo_H%C3%A4yh%C3%A4

As to the will to fight, yes, I believe that many Americans are possessed of every bit as much determination as are their Afghani counterparts. They've just never had the occasion (or the need) to demonstrate that fact.

[Muskypundit]

66. Not so sure as to how they defeated us in iraq.

They have a western style democracy (complete with gridlock) and western oil companies are getting contracts at a breakneck pace; even with our complete pull out.

And the pissant weapons were never a threat in Iraq. The militarized weapons were; the rockets, the mortars, the bombs, the light machine guns and full auto rifles were what sucked over there. We got shot at all the time with pistols and rifles. That didn't phase us. Running over artillery rounds did.

[paparush]

80. Breaking Bad II - Walter White takes on UAV's.

[MadHound]

12. Well, you're right,

But it isn't whether or not somebody would win, but the fact that people would be putting up a fight, resisting and dying here, in this country, on our soil.

As far as what people have, you would be surprised. BAR's, cannons, MK-18's, the list of such weapons is a long one.

[Arctic Dave]

13. Hardly a joke.

A military base is not self sufficient, a "ragtag" militia could use a siege of bases. No food, fuel or ease of movement.

Look how easy it was done in Iraq and that was done with the US having an outside military bases.

[TheKentuckian]

19. If the semi-stone aged population can pretty much kill the Soviets and drain

the US, then a well armed country with hundreds of millions in population can be a foil to our forces, especially when some percentage will flip.

That said, more hardware should be available to the population and all gun control efforts should not only cease but fully reversed.
No population can be free if it is not a match with its own military.

[Odin2005]

22. Ask the Vietcong.

They whipped our asses pretty well.

And guns have nothing to do with "our violent culture". Canadians are just as gun happy as we are and their rates of violent crime are much lower than ours. It's a cultural thing, the highest rates of violence on a state-wide basis are in states that have lots of people of Scots-Irish ancestry. We Minnesotans love our guns and our violent crime rates are as low as in Western Europe.

[krispos42]

29. Well, the Viet Cong had an outside supply of weapons and other supplies

But at the same time, so did we.

And the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese suffered horrendous losses. We lost 58,000 but they lost a dozen times that.


The situation gets very tricky, because we have to figure that American soldiers will be reluctant to kill fellow Americans. We have to figure that the American soldiers will be supplied from US bases and US companies, which means that a general dislike of the "loyalists" would result in sabotage of military supplies. We have to figure that the American guerrillas will destroy the sources of military supplies in the US and/or logistical routes.

Etc.

It would get VERY complicated.

[provis99]

64. Canadian violent crime rates are the same as ours.

You just pulled that statement out of your ass.

[Logical]

25. You are clueless on this topic.....

What has happened in many countries is that a small group of citizens will kill a smaller band of soldiers and then TAKE their weapons and ammo. Then the citizens slowly acquire more powerful weapons for the next encounter. Do some more reading.

[RegieRocker]

33. They have no idea what they are talking about. Nada!

[krispos42]

27. The other side of that...

...is that much of the weaponry that the military deploys would be particularly useless in fighting an insurgent campaign in America.

What are batteries of 155mm guns going to shell? What are the B-52s going to carpet bomb? What are the tanks going to shoot? What are the smart-bombs going to destroy?


And the cops have very little that I couldn't legally purchase. What they do have is organization and purpose.

The entire "insurgent" situation depends on the volume of people willing to put up a fight, and that in turns depends on the willingness of the general population to support "guerrillas in the midst".

The entire situation would get pretty fucked up, and fast.

[formercia]

31. That's what our military thought when they ignored dumps full of Artillery Shells

that the 'Insurgents' turned into massive IED's. They packed vehicles full of Artillery Shells DetCorded together. It made a real impression on some troops.

[freshwest]

30. Yup. Not even mentioning the anti-personnel, eardrum breaking, skin burning, nausea producing and

Other sonic, microwave and other anti-personnel weaponry that the taxpayers have funded the research, production and deployment of. And what of armed drones being used against the 'enemy?'

We've got drones in place in the skies over the USA in some areas now and every others kind of linked databases to point out who some might think the enemy is.

And all the media coverage of weird news, whacked out moments in public life that is being given, is just manufacturing consent for a crack down on whoever someone says is a domestic enemy. The majority of people don't act out, but will consent beause they are being sold this reality by media and are afraid of it.

And any kind of rogue government will take the media stories as permission to act, on things we've seen in entertainment media. There is collusion between the legislative and the producers of this stuff to make it seem a mass movement. Like the constant war video on every venue at the start of the Iraq war, it was as if the whole nation agreed. It didn't, by a long stretch. But it was in every public place one looked, supported by the munitions makers.

Most of what's been taught us in games, movies, television and music videos of a dystopian world view that does not match the real world is desensitizing people to accept the stuff of nightmares.

[JoeyT]

41. Um. Yes.

High powered rifles are all over the place. Usually with scopes.

Doesn't matter how many grenade launchers you've got strapped on when someone can shoot you from several hundred yards away before you know they're there. Otherwise our military wouldn't use snipers.

It makes it even worse when you have no idea who might be shooting at you.

[Throckmorton]

43. Yes, actually I do.

Just like three airlines were more than a match for our much vaunted continental air defense on 9/11.

When there is no place outside of a military base that a military force can be feel secure, then the scales tip.

Small arms do that.

[The Doctor.]

44. Actually, yes.

A small, organized force can be very dangerous. But the point isn't that the US military can be 'defeated' by armed civilians, it is the deterrent of having to deal with a well-armed populace.

[bvar22]

48. The VC did it in VietNam.

..and more recently, the Afghans did it to the Russians.
Iraq and Afghanistan will also be victories for the "insurgents" against the armed might of the World's Biggest Superpower.
They HAVE outlasted us, and history WILL record it as victories for them.

Don't "misunderestimate" how fiercely someone will fight for their home & family.




You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
Solidarity99!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[fasttense]

71. Great response.

You articulated what I was thinking.

[FreakinDJ]

9. Like bringing a "Sling Shot to a Gun Fight"

Can we say "Unmanned Drones" Children

IR targeting, Night vision Scopes and oh yes Armor Plating. Sure we could put up what would amount to little more then a "fuss" but the results would be catastrophic

[Odin2005]

24. +1,000,000,000,000,000,000

As the NH state motto says: LIVE FREE OR DIE.

[Upton]

28. +1,000,000,000,000,000,000 more..

I find it strange the way so many are willing to give up without even a fight..

[woo me with science]

37. We are also supposed to have the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth.

Amendment 4 - Search and Seizure. Ratified 12/15/1791.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment 5 - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings. Ratified 12/15/1791.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment 6 - Right to Speedy Trial, Confrontation of Witnesses. Ratified 12/15/1791.

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

[Butch350]

56. You wouldn't last long. Bad idea. They got way better weapons than you.

[lonestarnot]

11. Yes those fucking idiots do wonder. Argh

:argh:

[snot]

14. K&R'd!!!

[NashVegas]

18. Fucking 18th Century France

[msongs]

20. of course the president will veto this...right? right? umm maybe not nt

[Autumn]

23. The White House supports it,

what a shocking change that is.

[Odin2005]

21. Is it FASCISM yet?

[tuckessee]

26. Gosh, what could be bad about being detained by heroes? n/t

[woo me with science]

35. Let's see the fuckers defend this.

Are we AWAKE yet?

[bullwinkle428]

40. What did the "DU 1%" really expect when they so enthusiastically

pushed for such all-encompassing definitions of "war" and "battlefield"?

K&R.

[annabanana]

42. It is horrifying. How have we let so much of our much-vaunted "freedom" slip

through our fingers. We have failed miserably in the Eternal Vigilance department. Detention with no recourse. What could possible go wrong?

Shall I look to the rest of the world to come to our rescue someday? Must I encourage my sons to emigrate?

[woo me with science]

45. kick

[bvar22]

47. The Administration's Justification for this authority:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejvyDn1TPr8





You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
Solidarity99!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Liberal_in_LA]

49. k&r

[bhikkhu]

53. The bill doesn't actually do that - it specifically prohibits it, in fact

In Section 1032 of Title X, it says very clearly:

"(b) Applicability to United States Citizens and Lawful Resident Aliens-

(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS- The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States. "

The download link for the PDF is here: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112s1867pcs/pdf/BILLS-112s1867pcs.pdf

You can also find it at the Library of Congress, which should be the top of the list if you google "national defense authorization act 1867".

I'd recommend reading it before going off half-cocked. The bill has been around since June at least. The concerns listed in the OP were clearly voiced back then, and they seem to have been addressed and fixed pretty well in the current version of the bill they are working with.

[Phlem]

60. Thanks

I needed that.

-p

[aletier_v]

63. You're not a citizen

if you're a terrorist. :)

That's to get around that little regulation.

[davidthegnome]

68. So, it applies only to non-citizens

People visiting from other Countries, especially if they are middle eastern in appearance - I imagine we will see a lot of abuse with this sort of bill. Illegal aliens, who according to some have no rights and according to others deserve none, perhaps I am alone in thinking that the law should apply equally to everyone on our soil.

What decides if you are a US citizen? A birth certificate? Driver's license.. state issued ID? Perhaps in the future all forms of ID will be more on a federal basis, required to stand up to scanners every time we so much as hire a taxi. At the moment though, I suspect it would be a fairly simple matter for a federal agency to decide you are not a US citizen. Perhaps you fall under suspicion of knowing a terrorist, harboring one. Perhaps you fall under suspicion because you're a muslim or because your neighbor thinks all those toys in your garage are bomb making materials. People disappear all the time, don't they?

Why so much discussion revolving around this bill if these questions have been answered already and the solutions found? The Patriot Act also has some interesting wording.

No, I will not support any bill that gives politicians more "rights" to aggressive action on our soil. It is not because I distrust the military, for the most part I think our men and women in service are decent people. It is the politicians though, who make the decisions. A President is not a King, it is through checks and balances that we have maintained any level of freedom over the centuries. Don't let them keep chipping away at it.

[a2liberal]

69. not true AT ALL, please READ what you quote

That section is only saying that the military doesn't HAVE to detain citizens in the situation described earlier in the bill (and the next section says the same thing for legal residents). It doesn't say what you say it does. Note that I'm not taking a position on whether or not the bill gives the powers the OP says it does because I haven't read the entire 600+ page bill, only saying that your debunking is bunk. And I tend to trust the ACLU and even Ron Paul over some DU poster when it comes to civil liberties issues, especially when what they say matches what I see as an obvious trend in Washington.

Update: having looked at the bill more, section 1031 very clearly grants a very wide authority to detain with no exceptions for citizens. Section 1032, which is what you partially quoted, requires that detention except for citizens and legal residents. In other words, your supposed debunking is entirely false and I am now taking the position that what the OP describes is entirely correct like I thought.

[tomm2thumbs]

77. +1 you are correct the wording only implies 'not mandatory'

thanks for posting that

[Phlem]

57. I wonder if Obama set precedent

with this when he killed Bin Laden.

yeay, The disappearing of Americans for any reason what so ever.

USA, USA, USA,....

-p

[dajoki]

58. K&R

[SoapBox]

59. Gee...did Librul ABC, CBS, CNN, NBC, NPR, PBS cover this?

Hello?

Diane Sawyer??

Can you wipe that sappy look off your face for 1 second, to report something like this?

...didn't think so.

[blkmusclmachine]

61. Now they start using all those new laws they wrote for themselves after 9/11.

Coincidence?

[snappyturtle]

65. After a very long day I can not wrap my head around the stupidity of this

proposed bill. I'm ready to head for the hills to live out my days. Will have to come back to this with a fresh mind. Sweet dreams! ugh!

[McCamy Taylor]

67. The part about doing it in the US is unConstitutional. Why the hell have a National Guard if the

Army is allowed by law to act domestically?

[Fokker Trip]

73. Perhaps because the National Guard tends to be local?

The Chinese authorities were smart enough to bring troops into Tienanmen Square who were from the far north of China. They had little in common with the city folk and may have actually disliked them. Far fewer problems with resisting soldiers.

If I was a US commander wanting to stop a riot in NYC, I'd bring in troops from a southern state to suppress it. They'd all be Americans still but the regional differences would make soldier resistance less of an issue IMO.

[pam4water]

70. I suppose oh so liberal Obama will roll over and sign this because he just has to give himself more

power.

K&R

[IDemo]

75. "The Administration supports Senate passage of S. 1867"

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/legislative/sap/112/saps1867s_20111117.pdf

[pam4water]

83. Well that is just the nice way of saying I'm going to blow your mofu head clean off your body, I've

even seen. o_o

[wjcormier]

79. Open Letter To Democratic Underground, Daily Kos, Raw Story, Op-Ed News, Talk Left, And Other Progre

This open letter is directed to all of the Liberal/Progressive Blogs and other sites that are attempting to educate the American people with the truth rather than rhetoric and Propaganda. Specifically, this is in regard:

According to the ACLU: “The worldwide indefinite detention without charge or trial provision is in S.1867, the National Defense Authorization Act bill, which will be on the Senate floor on Monday (11-28). The bill was drafted in secret by Sens. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) and passed in a closed-door committee meeting, without even a single hearing.”

I am not attempting to editorialize in this brief Open Letter to the Blogging Community, however, I am asking all of you to remember HR-1955 and S-1959, the “Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007, otherwise known as the “Thought Crime Prevention Bill.” The Bill passed the House and it was fast-tracked for approval and there was a majority in the Senate that would have signed-off on the most egregious legislation that this nation has seen in over 50 years. There was a Press Blackout on the Bill, so the public was unaware that Congress was attempting to pull a fast-one on the public in secret; the Blogging community started a campaign that forced Congress to allow the Bill to die in Committee. For the first time since the 1960′s, the people and Blogging Sites stood together in solidarity and “we the people” killed the Bill through a massive campaign of emailing and calling every Senator in Congress, multiple times, and emailing them constantly and expressing our outrage against the proposed Legislation.

We effectively crashed the Senate and White House email servers and clogged all of the switchboards throughout Congress and the White House, and we did it for days. Granted, there were members of Congress that expressed their outrage, but it fell on deaf ears and we won. We can do the same with this Bill that Congress is again attempting to pass under the radar.

How Could We Forgot The Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act?

I am requesting that every Liberal/Progressive site write Op-Ed’s and Editorials in addition to the excellent work you have already accomplished and tell your readership how to stand in solidarity and work to kill the Bill before we are forced to live in a Soviet style of governance. We have to act fast and the Blogging Community, whom have been working to educate the masses are again left with the burden of energizing the pubic and starting a campaign that will again bring communications in Washington, D.C. to a standstill.

When Congress attempted to pass S-1959, all of the Op-Ed’s and Editorials of the various sites listed the phone numbers for the White House, The First Lady, The Justice Department, and the entire Congress – or in the alternative, linked to sites that contained that information. My Article on this issue will be published as soon as this piece is finished (And I finish writing it…) and it will contain said phone numbers and instructions so everyone can get the email addresses of the entirety of Congress, including their local offices, and of course the White House and Justice Department.

Make no mistake; this is a war against the American people perpetrated by both aisles of Congress. It appears that the Elites and Corporations are extremely worried about the Occupy Wall Street Protests and in their paranoia – expect that these protests will grow, become violent, and threaten their ability to rape and pillage the American people, even though all of the protests have been largely peaceful with violence and brutality being perpetrated by the Police – not the people.

Washington cannot function if their lines of communication are swamped beyond their ability to handle the hundreds of thousands of emails and phone calls, and working together, we can replicate what we did to kill the “Thought Crime Prevention Bill.” We don’t have much time and I am respectfully requesting that we all stand together in solidarity and kill this egregious Bill using methods that have proved to be successful in the past.

Furthermore, I am appealing to the International Community to do the same and email Washington and make phone calls from all over the world. After the United States implements this Bill, other nations will follow suit and fascism and authoritarian rule will begin to sweep throughout the global community. Egyptian Military Justifies Murder of Protesters by Pointing to American Cops, so please be acutely aware that what happens here in the United States is extremely likely to spring-up in your nation too… The international banking community is also fearful that global OWS Protests will pressure their respective governments to demand accountability throughout the financial community and foster round after round of laws and legislation that will hold these thieving Bankers accountable – and they will avoid risking the fall from their Ivory Towers with every resource they have even if it brings tyranny and Martial Law to enforce their stranglehold on politicians and World Leaders. If we lose the battle here in the United States, I believe that every industrialized nation throughout the world will fall like a line of Dominoes, one after the other until freedom and other forms of democracy and parliamentary rule are crushed and made into fascist regimes to further the ongoing Class-War and their domination of Global Politics.

I am asking all of you to please consider this proposal and act accordingly.We have the ability to reach hundreds of thousands of people, if not a million or two – and that’s enough to turn Washington upside-down and send a message that we will not allow our Constitution and Bill of Rights to be circumvented by a Congress that works behind our backs to bring tyranny to the United States, which in itself appears to amount to sedition and treason.

Thank you for your time and consideration.



William J. Cormier

Senior Site Administrator

ThePoliticalBandit.com/Justanothercoverup.com